BCS Selection Show

[kcchief19]

It's 4:10 and I just tuned over to the BCS Selection Show. Have they announced the pairings yet? They are listed on the official BCS Website at bcsfootball.org.

[Chubby]

BS posturing by people right now

[cthomer5000]

the website doesn't match the matchup they just announced.

They announced Pitt-Utah, website says Utah-Texas

[kcchief19]

Just saw that too. Whoops.

[Solecismic]

There's a bug in the BCS. Better issue a patch soon.

[Chubby]

aren't we already on BCS 4.2c?

[cthomer5000]

the website has been updated.

[kcchief19]

That makes more sense. According to the BCS rules, the Rose Bowl would have the top at-large pick by virtue of losing the No. 1 team to the national title game. Why they would have selected Pittsburgh is beyond me.

[Ben E Lou]

You want controversy? Pre-BCS, USC would have been playing the Big 10 champs in Pasadena. Oklahoma would have been playing someone else in Miami, and Auburn would have been down in New Orleans. There's a pretty good chance we'd have finished up with THREE undefeated teams.

[QuikSand]

So, in the big picture -- other than squabbling over money -- who really cares whether any given team makes it into "a BCS Bowl game" in a given year?

Unless you're in the BCS Championship Game -- what does it matter whether you're in one of the big four? On the surface, I'm sure there will be lots of people claiming that Cal got screwed... but what does it matter? They weren't going to finish #1 anyway, under any circumstance.

(Of course, I suspect many of the current "Cal not Pitt" people were among those who were scvreaming bloody murder about the importance of conference championships a few years ago when Nebraska made the title game without winning the Bix XII)

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

So, in the big picture -- other than squabbling over money -- who really cares whether any given team makes it into "a BCS Bowl game" in a given year?

Unless you're in the BCS Championship Game -- what does it matter whether you're in one of the big four? On the surface, I'm sure there will be lots of people claiming that Cal got screwed... but what does it matter? They weren't going to finish #1 anyway, under any circumstance.

(Of course, I suspect many of the current "Cal not Pitt" people were among those who were scvreaming bloody murder about the importance of conference championships a few years ago when Nebraska made the title game without winning the Bix XII)

$ speak quite loudly. Prestige. Recruiting. It's a big deal, even if it in the vein of the Emperor and his clothing.

[Darkiller]

BCS : Bowl Crap System.

I'm no Cal fan (although I do "like" them since they are Californian team but that is it) but still, I can feel their pain right now.
They finish AHEAD of Texas in both HUMAN polls and still get snubbed.

I understand that the BCS system gives all College Football fans plenty to talk about and it is very colourful but this is a sport and I don't see how anyone can argue AGAINST a Playoff system which would give a real chance to all top teams to have a shot.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

$

and prestige for recruiting efforts

[Darkiller]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

So, in the big picture -- other than squabbling over money -- who really cares whether any given team makes it into "a BCS Bowl game" in a given year?

Unless you're in the BCS Championship Game -- what does it matter whether you're in one of the big four? On the surface, I'm sure there will be lots of people claiming that Cal got screwed... but what does it matter? They weren't going to finish #1 anyway, under any circumstance.

(Of course, I suspect many of the current "Cal not Pitt" people were among those who were scvreaming bloody murder about the importance of conference championships a few years ago when Nebraska made the title game without winning the Bix XII)

As a Pro Football fan first and foremost, THAT you said : I agree 200%.
In the end, if you're not playing for the title, it doesn't really matter.
(Which is why College Football needs a Playoff so that an undefeated or 11-1 teams that finishes ranked #4 or #5 STILL has a chance at the National Title.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I can see this as being the beginning of the end for the current BCS format.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

DOLA : With FOX having the BCS in a year or 2 then its possible the Cotton not Gator Bowl will be the 4th BCS game.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Darkiller

They finish AHEAD of Texas in both HUMAN polls and still get snubbed.

And Texas finished ahead in every computer poll, which I'd trust more than the human polls.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by mckerney

And Texas finished ahead in every computer poll, which I'd trust more than the human polls.

I wouldn't.

The BCS is a joke and it was proved AGAIN this year. Anyone else think Mack Brown ranked Texas #4 and Cal #20? What a friggin' ABSURD system and it's the college football fan that gets screwed yet again. At this point, I'd rather have the old Bowl system.

People talk about 3 undefeated teams. By my count, there's 5. And it would seem that all 5 have a claim to being "National Champions". You could toss out Boise State if you wanted, but Auburn and the Utes both have valid claims. If I were one of them and I won my Bowl game, I'd put up a National Champions banner in my stadium.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I wouldn't.

The BCS is a joke and it was proved AGAIN this year. Anyone else think Mack Brown ranked Texas #4 and Cal #20? What a friggin' ABSURD system

Which is exactly the reason I'd rather trust a computer program to rank teams, especially when there biases like this that can help decide between two teams as close as the top 5 are. Getting more BCS bowl money for you team, conference pretige, regional rooting interests are all things that could influence AP and coach voters, along with computers probably having a better view of the performance of the team. I'll trust the computers more when they say Texas is #4 and Cal is #6.

[mckerney]

Dola:

It's disappointing Utah is playing Pitt, it's be much better if Michigan and Pitt were playing leaving the top 6 BCS teams to play in the other games.

[Warhammer]

Heck, put Utah against Auburn in the Sugar, THAT would have been a great game!

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I wouldn't.

The BCS is a joke and it was proved AGAIN this year. Anyone else think Mack Brown ranked Texas #4 and Cal #20? What a friggin' ABSURD system and it's the college football fan that gets screwed yet again. At this point, I'd rather have the old Bowl system.

People talk about 3 undefeated teams. By my count, there's 5. And it would seem that all 5 have a claim to being "National Champions". You could toss out Boise State if you wanted, but Auburn and the Utes both have valid claims. If I were one of them and I won my Bowl game, I'd put up a National Champions banner in my stadium.

See, I find Boise State to be a very underrated team. They dominated everyone they played. I think they have a very legimate claim for the title, as much as Utah.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just wondering ... has anybody seen anything that shows what this year's BCS standings would have been under the previous version of the system? I'm pretty curious but am nowhere near able to work out the details myself.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

See, I find Boise State to be a very underrated team. They dominated everyone they played. I think they have a very legimate claim for the title, as much as Utah.

Boise State 56, San Jose St. 49 (OT)
Boise State 28, BYU 27 (missed field goal by BYU in the last minute)
Boise State 45, Tulsa 42

Utah was never threatened like that. The final records of those teams were 2-9, 5-6, and 4-8, respectively.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just wondering ... has anybody seen anything that shows what this year's BCS standings would have been under the previous version of the system? I'm pretty curious but am nowhere near able to work out the details myself.

not sure if this could be done, since changes were made to the formulas of the computer systems to eliminate margin of victory. But it would be an interesting study. If anything, I'd probably guess that it would increase the Texas margin over Cal, since the computers had much more weight before this season.

[sooner333]

I do know that if it was last year's system that OU and USC would be in the Orange Bowl. OU had the top SOS of the three (in the old system) and USC was barely ahead of Auburn. Furthermore, USC and OU would have significant quality wins over Cal and Texas. Also, Auburn would be hurt in the human polls more because they were ranked 3, and the lesser differential in points in the poll wouldn't matter. Also, the computer polls being worth as much as the human polls would also hurt Auburn.

As for Texas and Cal. Texas would be helped more by the computers as cartman said. But, they would be hurt by the fact that in one poll, they were 2 spots behind Cal. Texas's SOS was about 20 spots better than Cal though, and I'm pretty sure Cal would be on the outside looking in still.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

See, I find Boise State to be a very underrated team. They dominated everyone they played. I think they have a very legimate claim for the title, as much as Utah.

I tend to disagree. As it was pointed out above, they squeaked by those games and watch out because Louisville is gonna SMOKE them in the Liberty Bowl.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by sooner333

I do know that if it was last year's system that OU and USC would be in the Orange Bowl. OU had the top SOS of the three (in the old system) and USC was barely ahead of Auburn. Furthermore, USC and OU would have significant quality wins over Cal and Texas. Also, Auburn would be hurt in the human polls more because they were ranked 3, and the lesser differential in points in the poll wouldn't matter. Also, the computer polls being worth as much as the human polls would also hurt Auburn.

As for Texas and Cal. Texas would be helped more by the computers as cartman said. But, they would be hurt by the fact that in one poll, they were 2 spots behind Cal. Texas's SOS was about 20 spots better than Cal though, and I'm pretty sure Cal would be on the outside looking in still.

Did some rough calculations, and I believe that the top 6 would have remained the same. Quality victory would have gone with USC and OU having .70 deductions and Auburn having a .50 deduction. I can't be sure on the computers, though I took the average of the 6 polls used in this years BCS. The only changes I see happening in the top 10:

* Difference in way computer average is taken moves Boise State to #8 and drops Virginia Tech to #9.
* Large difference in strength in schedule barely puts LSU ahead of Louisville at #10, Louisville drops to #11.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Did some rough calculations, and I believe that the top 6 would have remained the same. Quality victory would have gone with USC and OU having .70 deductions and Auburn having a .50 deduction. I can't be sure on the computers, though I took the average of the 6 polls used in this years BCS. The only changes I see happening in the top 10:

* Difference in way computer average is taken moves Boise State to #8 and drops Virginia Tech to #9.
* Large difference in strength in schedule barely puts LSU ahead of Louisville at #10, Louisville drops to #11.

Ah, I forgot about the Georgia win for Auburn...stupid me. I think Cal probably would have gone if margin of victory was still in the computers too.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Ah, I forgot about the Georgia win for Auburn...stupid me. I think Cal probably would have gone if margin of victory was still in the computers too.

I believe margin of victory was removed before last season though.


Auburn would have gotten .4 from the Georgia win, then another .1 from the victory over LSU.

[Honolulu_Blue]

How can you not be excited by a Michigan/Texas game? That said, this is not a good Michigan team playing on the West Coast. They will get killed.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

How can you not be excited by a Michigan/Texas game? That said, this is not a good Michigan team playing on the West Coast. They will get killed.

Because a Utah/Texas or Utah/Auburn game would be much better.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Because a Utah/Texas or Utah/Auburn game would be much better.

Not if you're a Texas or Auburn player. Which is a better memory to tell your kids/new friends you meet as adults/grandkids/etc.?

a. You should have seen us back in '04 when we whupped Michigan! Them Yankees got to see some good Southern football! What a great memory for my last football game ever!
b. You should have seen us back in '04 when we beat Utah! Yeah, I know they haven't been good since then and have no tradition, but they were good that year! Really! I promise! They went 11-0! Yeah they played in weak conference, but they beat Carolina and BYU pretty good, and they beat Air Force by TWO WHOLE TOUCHDOWNS!!!



I know, I'm a *^(%*^ elitist. But in all seriousness, I'd *much* rather see Georgia play a 9-2 Michigan team in a bowl than an 11-0 Utah team. I'd rather we were playing 7-4 Ohio State than 9-2 Wisconsin. A non-National Championship Bowl is nothing more than a consolation prize anyway. At least make it a game that matters to posterity.

On another subject...

To repeat, the problem isn't the BCS. The BCS is the latest whippin' boy system. Under the pre-BCS setup, Auburn, Oklahoma and Southern Cal would all be playing someone else, and perhaps all three end up undefeated. Until there's a true playoff, this debate will continue, and whatever the non-playoff system is will continue to bear the brunt of people's frustration.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Not if you're a Texas or Auburn player. Which is a better memory to tell your kids/new friends you meet as adults/grandkids/etc.?

a. You should have seen us back in '04 when we whupped Michigan! Them Yankees got to see some good Southern football! What a great memory for my last football game ever!
b. You should have seen us back in '04 when we beat Utah! Yeah, I know they haven't been good since then and have no tradition, but they were good that year! Really! I promise! They went 11-0! Yeah they played in weak conference, but they beat Carolina and BYU pretty good, and they beat Air Force by TWO WHOLE TOUCHDOWNS!!!



I know, I'm a *^(%*^ elitist. But in all seriousness, I'd *much* rather see Georgia play a 9-2 Michigan team in a bowl than an 11-0 Utah team. I'd rather we were playing 7-4 Ohio State than 9-2 Wisconsin. A non-National Championship Bowl is nothing more than a consolation prize anyway. At least make it a game that matters to posterity.

On another subject...

To repeat, the problem isn't the BCS. The BCS is the latest whippin' boy system. Under the pre-BCS setup, Auburn, Oklahoma and Southern Cal would all be playing someone else, and perhaps all three end up undefeated. Until there's a true playoff, this debate will continue, and whatever the non-playoff system is will continue to bear the brunt of people's frustration.

As a Yankee, I agree wholeheartedly with SkyDog's statements. I'd much rather have Michigan play against a Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. I simply loved it back in 1999 when Michigan State beat Florida and Michigan beat Alabama. Great stuff. Big Ten/SEC match-ups are always fun. Bowl Season is always the time when I put aside my local hatreds and get behind the Big Ten 100%. Midwest pride and all.

The only team I have wanted to see Michigan play more than Texas over the last 15 or so years has been Nebraska (for that 1997 fiasco). I just wish Texas were facing a better Michigan team.